Garcia

Garcia v. Cavallo

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 1, 20233:20-cv-04167California1,240 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

13 Petitioner David Garcia seeks federal habeas relief from his state convictions for the 14 sexual assault of a child. The first amended petition for habeas relief is now before the 15 Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 16 2254 Cases. 17 The first amended petition states cognizable claims. Accordingly, on or before 18 June 12, 2023, respondent shall file an answer or a dispositive motion in response to the 19 amended habeas petition. The petition discloses that Garcia was convicted in 2011. (Am. 20 Pet., Dkt. No. 12 at 1.) He filed the current petition in 2020, which is beyond the 1-year 21 filing limit imposed by AEDPA. If respondent concludes that this habeas action is 22 untimely, he may wish to file a motion to dismiss the action on such grounds, though he is 23 not required to do so. 24 This federal habeas action was dismissed because Garcia failed to pay the filing fee 25 or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 7.) Since dismissal, Garcia 26 has paid the filing fee and filed an amended petition. (Dkt. Nos. 11 and 12.) Accordingly, 27 this federal habeas action is REOPENED. …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.